- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21506 RFA No. 1442 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 1442 OF 2025 (PAR-) BETWEEN: SUNIL KUMAR SON OF VENKATESHAPPA K, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT SHBNTHINAGARA, SURHAHONE VILAGE, NYAMATHI TALUK, DAVANGERE DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. HIREMATHAD MAHESHIAH RUDRAYYA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VENKATESHAPPA K SON OF KENGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDENTS OF SURAHONNE -VILLAGE, NYAMATHI TALUK DAVANGERE-DISTRICT 2. SMT. SHARADAMMA WIFE OF VENKATESHAPPA K., AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDENTS OF SURAHONNE -VILLAGE, NYAMATHI TALUK DAVANGERE-DISTRICT 3. SHASHIKUMAR SON OF VENKATESHAPPA K., AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDENTS OF SURAHONNE -VILLAGE, NYAMATHI TALUK DAVANGERE-DISTRICT 4. HANUMANTHA SON OF VENKATESHAPPA K., AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21506 RFA No. 1442 of 2025 RESIDENTS OF SURAHONNE -VILLAGE, NYAMATHI TALUK DAVANGERE-DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL U/O RULE 1,2 AND 4 R/W S-96 OF THE CODE CIVIL PROCEDURE- 1908 IS FILED PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 16-10-2024, PASSED IN OS NO. 215/23 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT HARIHARA SITTING AT HONNALI, BY DECREEING THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFF WITH EXEMPLARY COSTS. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL JUDGMENT The valuation slip furnished by the appellant while assailing the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge clearly reveals that the suit schedule properties are valued at Rs.39,83,000/- for the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction while the plaintiff's 1/4th share is valued at Rs.9,95,750/-. Therefore, this Court is inclined to accept the objection raised by the office that this appeal is not maintainable under Section 19(1) of Karnataka Co-Operative Societies Act and Section 5(1) of the Karnataka High Court Act. Office objection is upheld since the appeal lies before the District Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21506 RFA No. 1442 of 2025 2. The appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. Liberty is reserved to appellant to file the appeal before the appropriate appellate Court. In the event appeal is filed within two weeks, the time spent before this Court shall be excluded by extending benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. 3. Registry shall forthwith return the certified copy of the judgment after securing photo copies. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62